The Fall of Gondolin

[leebase]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Could, but would they? Most of these doomsday scenarios were both possible and legal in much of the world until fairly recently. Heck, there very little actual intellectual property protection is much of the world even now. You don't think you can buy fake mouse ears elsewhere in the world?

The world is quite different today as well. We have the ability to put a single file on the web and everybody across the world can get a perfect copy.

We aren’t talking about medicine. We are talking about fiction, stories. There may be only a handful of ways to control pain. Thank goodness patents aren’t forever. Knowledge advances mand kind and patents allow people to make money on their hard work of inventing something new and society get to move forward on their shoulders some 20 or so years later.

But there are an infinite ways to tell a story. There is only one Romeo and Juliet...but there are thousands...likely more...of the same story told differently. Romeo and Juliet is unlikely to have been the first of that archetype anyway.

Anybody today can make aspirin. Won’t be too long and anybody will be able to make viagara. That’s a good thing. I do not think society has any reason other than avarice to take away the rights of stories and characters.

You want to retell a story that springs from the same source that Disney used? Great. You can...but why would your character have to be named Snow White? Sleepy Sarah and the tiny miners. Or whatever.

Instead of Lord of the Rings, you write The Sword of Shanara. But hopefully you do better than actually copying character for character and scene for scene as Brooks did with his first couple of books.

And how pathetic the desire to take away the economic value of an author's works for his descendants just so you can have a free book.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

The world is quite different today as well. We have the ability to put a single file on the web and everybody across the world can get a perfect copy.

We aren’t talking about medicine. We are talking about fiction, stories. There may be only a handful of ways to control pain. Thank goodness patents aren’t forever. Knowledge advances mand kind and patents allow people to make money on their hard work of inventing something new and society get to move forward on their shoulders some 20 or so years later.

But there are an infinite ways to tell a story. There is only one Romeo and Juliet...but there are thousands...likely more...of the same story told differently. Romeo and Juliet is unlikely to have been the first of that archetype anyway.

Anybody today can make aspirin. Won’t be too long and anybody will be able to make viagara. That’s a good thing. I do not think society has any reason other than avarice to take away the rights of stories and characters.

You want to retell a story that springs from the same source that Disney used? Great. You can...but why would your character have to be named Snow White? Sleepy Sarah and the tiny miners. Or whatever.

Instead of Lord of the Rings, you write The Sword of Shanara. But hopefully you do better than actually copying character for character and scene for scene as Brooks did with his first couple of books.

And how pathetic the desire to take away the economic value of an author's works for his descendants just so you can have a free book.

Once again, you confuse several very different concepts. Copyright has evolved to include both the actual copying of books and derivative works, such as movie rights and writing in the same universe.

Given that I already have multiple copies of LOTR that I paid the full price for, your sneer that anyone who disagrees with you must just want free copies is a red herring and a pretty obvious sign that you are struggling with a coherent defense for your idea that copyright is property and belongs to the author heirs for eternity. Do you really think that someone who wants a copy of a book would wait 56 ( or 100+ years with the existing system) years for the copyright to expire before getting a free copy?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by leebase

<snip>
You want to retell a story that springs from the same source that Disney used? Great. You can...but why would your character have to be named Snow White? Sleepy Sarah and the tiny miners. Or whatever.
<snip>

You do realize that Walt Disney didn't create the characters of Snow White and the seven dwarves, don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White

Shari

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by shalym

You do realize that Walt Disney didn't create the characters of Snow White and the seven dwarves, don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White

Shari

No, no, no. The Brothers Grimm had a time machine that they used to pilfer all kinds of stuff from Disney.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by shalym

You do realize that Walt Disney didn't create the characters of Snow White and the seven dwarves, don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White

Shari

There are really two major issues that those who think that copyright is property and should belong to the heirs of the author for eternity have to address.

First is why should copyright be considered property when prior to the printing press, making copies of books without compensating the author was the norm. What is the philosophical basis of making only artists protected, while other craftsmen and professionals' works are not protected?

Second, where do we draw the line? As Newton is quoted as saying "If I have seen further, then it's by standing on the shoulders of giants", acknowledging that his work was based on previous works. The same goes for most artists. Most artists acknowledge that they were influenced and drew ideas from earlier artists. This is the whole point of public domain and the whole point of making sure that copyrights and patents do lapse into public domain. It's not about getting free books, it's about not shackling the next generation of artists and inventors.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by leebase

On the contrary. Basing a NEW story on existing ideas and tales is completely unimpeeded by copyright. So many movies are just Romeo and Juliet retold. But you don’t need to name the characters Romeo and Juliet.

So make your own Snow White inspired book or movie. Just not the actual Snow White.

I’d make an exception for works abandoned by the author or publisher.

Even if you use the same name when basing your characters after myths and folk stories (or hundreds year old plays), there's also the matter of making the character unique. "Warm Bodies" (the zombie comedy/romance movie) was based loosely on Romeo and Juliet, but its characters were completely unique. Same with the Disney movies.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by rcentros

If you want to make Tolkien's work Public Domain ... fine. Tell anyone who makes a derivative product from that world they can't sell it or profit from it — that their work is also in the public domain.

You clearly misunderstand the copyright system. Creating a derivative work from public domain does not require the derivative work to be also in public domain. In fact, in the US the derivative work is automatically under copyright. And where do you get the mistaken idea from that you are not allowed to profit from public domain work? Of course you are allowed to profit from it.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You clearly misunderstand the copyright system. Creating a derivative work from public domain does not require the derivative work to be also in public domain. In fact, in the US the derivative work is automatically under copyright. And where do you get the mistaken idea from that you are not allowed to profit from public domain work? Of course you are allowed to profit from it.

I do understand how the copyright system works. I just don't like it. If a writer's heirs can't profit from his creation, why should parasites be able to latch on to it?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I do understand how the copyright system works. I just don't like it. If a writer's heirs can't profit from his creation, why should parasites be able to latch on to it?

Why can't the author's heirs profit from the author's creation, even if it's in the public domain? Do you know how many copies of Shakespeare's plays are sold every day? If he had any living heirs, they could sell the plays just like anyone else can. The actual heirs may even be able to sell their copies for more, if they added some sort of extra content, like a story about what the author was doing while the book was being written, or something similar.

Shari

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I do understand how the copyright system works. I just don't like it. If a writer's heirs can't profit from his creation, why should parasites be able to latch on to it?

You may have understood how it works, but you seem to have missed the point of copyright. It's not to provide a perpetual income stream for the heirs of the author. It's to provide an income stream for the author, so that they can continue to produce work.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

You may have understood how it works, but you seem to have missed the point of copyright. It's not to provide a perpetual income stream for the heirs of the author. It's to provide an income stream for the author, so that they can continue to produce work.

I think, though, that most people would accept that it's reasonable for an author's royalties to be passed on to their family when they die, just as any other intangible asset could be. If I set up a widget-making company, I can pass the ownership of, and profits from, that company on to my descendants after my death without them having to personally make widgets themselves. The question then becomes how long it's reasonable for that to continue.

Of course the reality is that very, very few books continue to earn significant revenue long after their author's demise, so I think the current situation of works entering the public domain a certain length of time after the author's death is a reasonable compromise, although one might debate how long that time period should be.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course the reality is that very, very few books continue to earn significant revenue long after their author's demise, so I think the current situation of works entering the public domain a certain length of time after the author's death is a reasonable compromise, although one might debate how long that time period should be.

I'd prefer to see a fixed time from publication, or the author's death, whichever gives the longer term. That is, say, 70 years or life, instead of the current life + 70 years.

But I accept that the best I'm going to see is a reversion to life+50. And even that seems unlikely.

[Greg Anos]

The problem with the underlying concept of perpetual copyright is that it conflates two very different concepts as one.

Property, which is usually thought of as real property, such as land, in this comparison. Land is a fixed stock there is only so much of it. (Let's not quibble about filling in swamps to create more land.) It existed before Man came onto the scene, it will exist after Man leaves the scene. The question is who controls any particular piece of it. That is where you get perpetual ownership of property.

Copyright is a totally different subject. It is not property. There is no fixed stock of copyright. More is created all the time. Think of it like a factory product (which in a sense it is). A factory produces a good for sale. It often has an expiration date, after which the product is no longer suitable for it's intended use, and should be disposed of. There is no perpetual ownership of the property created by the factory, the ownership of the product transfers with the sale of said product.

So why shouldn't the factory only produce the same exact product, over and over again? It is cheaper and more efficient. Governments around the world are of the opinion the new products enrich everybody, providing more choice. So they have embedded limited monopolies to encourage new products. Those laws are not there to create new perpetual product lines, but to create new product lines, over and over again. Part of the deal is that those monopolies expire, to encourage new products.

Let me ask the question - how can a new artist compete with cheaper old art? And who gets the royalties on the old work? The heirs? What if there aren't any? A perpetual corporation like Disney? There are a lot of holes in the reasoning. . . .

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

You may have understood how it works, but you seem to have missed the point of copyright. It's not to provide a perpetual income stream for the heirs of the author. It's to provide an income stream for the author, so that they can continue to produce work.

Again, I do understand the "point" of copyright. But I think the value of what the writer creates should be something that he can pass down to his heirs. I don't understand why something of value, created by the writer can't benefit his children and their children.

I understand the limitations of copyright, I just don't agree with that limitation. I realize it's probably not a very popular opinion here. But it is what it is.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Again, I do understand the "point" of copyright. But I think the value of what the writer creates should be something that he can pass down to his heirs. I don't understand why something of value, created by the writer can't benefit his children and their children.

I think of it this way: writers can (and do) pass the benefits of their creation to their children. I would even go so far as to say they're entitled to pass those benefits/rights on. The estates of the creators will likely always have an advantage over all others when it comes to profiting from their progenitor's work. Fans are typically fans of the creator as much as they are fans of the work. Fans (read: the ones who are going to be doing most of the buying) typically want to pay the "right" person.

What they're not entitled to pass on to their heirs (in my opinion), is perpetual, government-supplied protection from others also making money on those creations (after a reasonable and finite exclusivity period).

Allowing others to use the characters and stories from works that have succeeded in becoming a part of the fabric of our culture is only natural, in my opinion. It does not mean anything is being stolen from anyone, nor does it mean anyone's ability (including any rightful heirs) to profit from them dries up (or even diminishes at all) when they enter the public domain. Quite the opposite, in fact.